RTE, a half-baked idea

Right-To-Education (RTE) is an international protocol with four A's — Availability, Accessibility, Acceptability and Adaptability. The Government has enacted a law which, among other stipulations, compels all private schools to enrol 25 per cent children from economically weaker sections and disadvantaged communities, and do so by simple random selection.

No seats in that quota can be left vacant. The schools will be subsidised by the State at the rate of average per learner costs in the Government schools – unless the costs in the private school are lower – but no complementary compensation when they are higher. That kind of one-sided compulsion has been held valid by the Supreme Court.

This decision raises a few questions. How can a private school ensure that 25 per cent of its children will always be from the reserved category, particularly when some of them may drop out? Secondly, how may the cost of education in Government schools be calculated – when they do not pay taxes, have no system for depreciation, or even that of maintenance? Thirdly, as most Government schools do not offer the basic requirements of sports and other essential needs of children, how will their cost be realistic?

Common standards

Internationally, RTE is the primary responsibility of the state. It is worth enquiring how far does the Indian state ensure acceptability and adaptability. In fact, some of the moves made by the Central and State governments directly infringe on acceptability – many parents want their children to learn English but that is expressly prohibited in most cases. It is a fact that the Central Government is keen to impose common standards in all schools and that will make it impossible to make them adapt to a multi-cultural society.

The Supreme Court's acceptance of the 25 per cent reservation in private schools for disadvantaged children may be questioned on the basis of logic. For instance, why 25 per cent and not 20, or 30 or all such children? The figure of 25 per cent is ad hoc, for which no scientific justification can be given. For instance, the Supreme Court could have invoked the well-known Pareto Principle according to which the top 50 per cent of the population contributes 80 per cent of the costs and the bottom 50 per cent pays only 20 per cent. On that basis, the Court could have said that the disadvantaged children could be charged one fourth of the regular fees and that amount may be paid either by the student or by the state.

In contrast, the Delhi Government has offered Rs 1,190 as its estimated cost of educating a child in its own schools. That figure obviously does not take into account the taxes exempted, and the absence of calculation of depreciation or of maintenance. It does not include the cost of extra facilities a private school may offer such as tennis courts and swimming pools and even libraries, which are virtually non-existent in state-run schools.

The issues are two-fold: One, those who study in private schools are rich and hence they should subsidise poor children. Two, the rich pay their taxes and why should the Government not reimburse the schools in a fair manner out of those taxes?

Further, not everyone admitted to private schools is rich; many parents make major sacrifices to ensure that their children get a decent education, at least have teachers to teach them regularly. That basic amenity is not available in many state-run schools. Hence, forcing parents to subsidise poor children may or may not be fair.

Not enough facilities

The fact is that in India state-managed schools have failed to offer even the basic facilities for education— for instance, regular attendance by the teachers or enough teachers for each class. Practically, no school offers instructors in sports, music and other arts. Is that proper? The Government is deciding what should be taught, and not what the parents of children desire. In fact, we have the case of the West Bengal government going to the extreme of denying its libraries freedom to choose newspapers. Evidently, our governments have no respect for the freedom a child or a parent should have.

There are two other issues which too need rethinking. One is the prohibition of collecting capitation fees – defined as anything in excess of prescribed fees. The “experts” in the Government seem to have no idea that schools need lots of money, particularly for co-curricular activities, which only rich donors can offer and normal parents cannot.

One understands the fear of the Government that most capitation fees will be black money. If it so wants, the Government can virtually eliminate black money, for example, by simply ordering that all high value notes will have only a short tenure. Politicians will not do so, because they live and thrive on black money. This concern about black money appears to be insincere.

The second issue is the exclusion of minority institutions from the purview of the Act. The question is who the majority in the country is. Do the Yadavs, the Reddys, the Vokkaligas, or any other Hindu community constitute a majority? I recollect going to the Hindu High School in Madras run by a minuscule sub-sub-sub caste of Hindus which, by law, does not enjoy “minority” status. In my school days, that was a much coveted school. But Government regulation on who will teach and whom to teach and how much to charge made that school a pathetic one.

It would have been nice if the Government had enquired why even poor people prefer private schools. One wonders how many private schools will go the way of the Hindu High school.

(The author is a former Director, IIT, Madras. Response to >indiresan@gmail.com and >blfeedback@thehindu.co.in )

This is 327th in the Vision 2020 series. The previous article appeared on April 7.

COMMENT NOW